- Informant’s Tips
An informant’s tip may constitute a basis for police
action so long as a substantial basis exists to credit the
hearsay based on the totality of the circumstances. State v.
Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 92 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1033
(1998). A few past instances of reliability cannot
conclusively establish an informant’s reliability. Id. at 94.
Important factors in assessing the reliability of the
informant’s tip include that the information gives the
police sufficient detail, recounts information that could
not be attributed to rumors, or predicts future events which
would be difficult to know. Id. at 94-95. Corroboration of
the details in the tip constitutes an essential element of
probable cause because it ratifies the informant’s veracity,
validates the truthfulness of the tip and may add to the
evidentiary weight of the factors as well as the overall
circumstances. Id. at 98.
- Anonymous tips
A tip from an anonymous source does not by itself
demonstrate the informant’s basis of knowledge or
veracity. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 110 S.Ct.
2412, 2415, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); State v. Goree, 327
N.J. Super. 227, 236 (App. Div. 2000); State v. Sharpless,
314 N.J. Super. 440, 448 (App. Div. 1998). As such, it
would not provide sufficient basis for the police to act. An
anonymous tip, suitability corroborated, may exhibit
“sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable
suspicion to make an investigatory stop.” Alabama v.
White, 496 U.S. at 327, 110 S.Ct. at 2414, 110 L.Ed.2d
- Among the factors that may endow the tip with
reliability is police surveillance or the anonymous tip’s
predictive information. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271,
120 S.Ct. 1375, 1379 (2000). There is no lesser standard
applied when the tip alleges that a person is in possession of
a firearm. Id. at 271-72, 120 S.Ct. at 1379-80; State v.
Goree, 327 N.J. Super. at 245.
K. Border and airport searches
Border searches, based upon the “long-standing right
of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining
persons and property crossing into this country,” United
States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978,
52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977), are reasonable “simply by virtue of
the fact that they occur at the border.” Id. Therefore, no
warrant is necessary to conduct such a search. However,
this rule applies only to stops performed at the border or its
“functional equivalent.” Almeida-Sanchez v. United States,
413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973).
Airport security searches, which are broadcast by way of a
sign or other notice, are considered implied consent
searches. United States v. Doe, 61 F.3d 107, 109-10 (1st Cir.
1995). To be upheld as warrantless searches, they must be
narrowly limited to their objective of searching for
weapons or explosives. United States v. De Los Santos
Ferrer, 999 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
997 (1993).L. RoadblocksStopping a car at a roadblock is a seizure under the
Fourth Amendment. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz,
496 U.S. 444, 450, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412
(1990). However, the police do not need reasonable
suspicion of unlawful activity to stop cars at a roadblock so
long as 1) the roadblock was established by supervisory
police officials, 2) the time, location and operation of the
roadblock is reasonable and 3) adequate warnings to the
public near the site of the roadblock. State v. Flowers, 328
N.J. Super. 205, 211 (App. Div. 2000); State v. Reynolds,
319 N.J. Super. 426, 431 (App. Div. 1998); State v. Kirk,
202 N.J. Super. 28, 40-41 (App. Div. 1985). The State
must establish that governmental interests of sufficient
importance “warrant the intrusion upon the traveling
public’s federal and state constitutional rights to be free of
warrantless seizures.” State v. Kadalak, 258 N.J. Super.
599, 613 (App. Div. 1992). Courts have upheld
roadblocks for driving while intoxicated, State v. Kirk,
supra; for stolen cars, State v. Flowers, supra; for vehicle
safety checks, State v. Kadalak, supra; for illegal aliens,
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct.
3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) and for drug interdiction,
Merrett v. Moore, 58 F.3d 1547 (11th Cir. 1995). But see
Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1999),
aff’d.,sub nom. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 121 S.Ct.
447 (2000) (drug interdiction roadblocks unconstitu-
tional).M. Inventory searchesA police inventory of property is valid when it is part of
routine police practice and is not conducted as a pretext for
an indiscriminate purpose. These procedures protect the
inventoried property while in police custody, protect
police and others from false property claims and safeguard
the police from potential danger. South Dakota v.
Opperman 428 U.S. 364, 375-76, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3100, 49
L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). When the driver is arrested for a
motor vehicle violation, impounding the vehicle and
inventorying its contents in accordance with police
procedures is improper unless the driver consents or is
given a reasonable opportunity to make other arrange-
ments for the custody of the vehicle. State v. Slockbower, 79